Observation must begin from the beginning

[beetlemaniac]

I then remembered that I spent my growing years parenting my parents. That's how I experienced it anyway. They were both deeply unhappy and damaged people. So I had to parent my younger brother too.

Hi Strawman,

It feels to me that this is a really important insight and worth looking into further. Narcissistic wounding from childhood can cause us to become so estranged from our true feelings -- because we suppressed them to cater to the needs of the parent system. In adult life, this narcissism can cause us to be excessively intellectual about our relationships with others, trying to anticipate what their needs are, instead of being authentic in the true sense of the word. The strategy works well in superficial terms but gets dysfunctional when relationships progress into ever more deeper layers of our psyche.

At that point if we can gain more consciousness of our unmet needs, we can also start to see ways in which our behavior is motivated by these needs. So then it becomes a point to acknowledge the wounding that is causing this neediness. The pouring of light (knowledge, love) onto these wounds, coupled with good diet and practice of EE is helping me on my own personal journey of discovering the truth about myself.

The Big 5 books come useful in the bit about gaining knowledge, and they should be read with compassion for the wounded part of yourself -- not just intellectually. The compassion will become the driving force to bring your conception of yourself to be aligned with your true self and to release all those past hurts. I'd recommend also checking out Fear of the Abyss by Aleta Edwards.

I feel that the 4th way practice is incomplete without an understanding the dynamics that occurred in our family lives -- I haven't read a lot of Gurdjieff material, only ISOTM, but it seems that for healing emotional wounding, the knowledge the group has collected on Narcissism and Vampirism is indispensable. Hope this helps...

edit: Fixed book title & added link

 

[Vic]

Receiving objective responses from those well along the path can seem cold and harsh. I've felt this. Especially when despite trying hard to be objective myself, and feeling as though I'm succeeding, beneath that objectivity is a desire for a positive emotional response. To me this suggests, in my case anyway, that my objectivity is only coming from one centre - thinking. So perhaps the emotional centre is merely suppressed, giving the illusion of objectivity.

What do you mean by "trying hard to be objective myself"? What does "trying" consist of? Can you describe these efforts?

You got me there. In trying to be objective I either put myself, the self without emotion, in the position of the one who's issue I am trying to be objective about, as well as any peripheral people involved in that issue. I look at the big picture of the issue, with the information available, and analyse it for attitudes, beliefs, and dysfunctions that may be contributing to the issue. I then look to my memory/experience for similar issues that I have encountered before, and look for matching patterns. If I find matching patterns I use them on which to base my conclusions.

Thanks for prompting me to look at this. Immediately I see Timothy D. Wilson's Adaptive Unconscious. The adaptive unconscious is, to a large degree, a tool of subjectivity, so it would be a point of failure in an attempt at achieving objectivity. Strike one.

Then of course my memories/experience could also be defined as subjective.

Emotional thinking aside, I am able to take my own emotion out of a situation and use logic/reason. For instance occasional confrontation is part of my work. One of my men went off at me the other morning because he wanted to do something other than I had allocated him to do. My initial reaction was 'I'm under attack' - this lasted for five or so seconds. As he went on, angry and wanting his own way, I removed my emotion and in a matter of seconds scanned his history as I knew it, remembered how he always looks a little unhappy, remembered hearing how he negatively approached a colleague, and then saw him for what he was - a young man with an issue that had nothing to do with his current behaviour. I explained why I had chosen him for that particular task and at the same time assured him that that would be the task he would be doing.

The next morning I was very friendly with him, invited him to one side, and asked him if he thought the way he had approached me was appropriate. He didn't, and in his own less than skillful way he apologised. The way I dealt with the situation, as far as I am aware, was objective. But was it? Is my definition of objectivity a faulty program? I may be seeing a green apple that others see as red.

But by the very definition of the human machine in its current fallen 3D state surely we are all subjective and therefore unequipped to be truly objective. If I am wrong on this, and true objectivity is attainable, then I am hungry to know how it works and how it is experienced by the objective person.

Buddy, may I ask if you were allowed to be a child when you were growing up?

Not for long. I'm second oldest of five kids and the oldest male. My parents divorced before I was ten and until I turned 18 and left home the majority of my life was spent being responsible for younger siblings and the parent - even to the point of cooking and cleaning and answering for the younger one's mis-behavior.[/quote]

Thanks, Buddy. I appreciate your response. I think I was looking for a pattern with which to match my own. I also feel sad that you had to experience all that. But at the same time I feel happy that you are a warrior rather than a victim.

Let me explain what just happened - the sequence of thoughts:

I suddenly had an sharp awareness of how childish I am.

I then remembered this that you wrote "We needed that as kids, and unless our need was thoroughly satisfied, I suspect it's still there for most of us."

I then remembered that I spent my growing years parenting my parents. That's how I experienced it anyway. They were both deeply unhappy and damaged people. So I had to parent my younger brother too.

I'm now not exactly sure where I am trying to go with this. Once again thoughts from others would be welcome....

You might be wondering if an awareness of feeling childish is related to unfulfilled emotional needs in childhood? I would think it's possible. Have you read the 'Big 5' yet?[/quote]

Just Myth of Sanity and Strangers to Ourselves.

I now find myself attempting to identify with this 'awakening' to my childishness. Fortunately I was reading Hesper's thread - seeking a new crystallisation - earlier (I think it's in the Swamp so I won't post the link) and someone warned about identifying with thoughts and emotions.

Just humour me. I'll get there

Seems to me that on the path of this work in self-development, we will have many experiences, emotions and moods for varying lengths of time. The long-range strategy, though, is about fusing a unified "I". So, with that in mind it seems an important goal along the way will be finding an inner place of stability from which you can observe all that's going on in your mind and emotions, noting how changes of outlook and perspectives accompany emotional and mood shifts. That could go a long way toward gaining the objectivity you seek. Even when you find this place, you might not stay there long, but once you experience it, you know it's possible and it can be regained - especially with help from the network.[/quote]

I think my emotional thinking has always been helter-skelter-like. This is the source, I think, of my sense of childishness. At this moment, as I reproduce my thoughts and feelings calmly and evenly I don't feel childish. Yes, that inner place of stability is my current goal. I believe I have reached it at some level - most of the time I don't mind being me. Can't say its even close to how I want to be, but It's not that bad considering. OSIT. I do experience a place of inner stability some of the time. Possibly most of the time. But of course it needs a lot of development if it is to reach the sort of place you are talking about. Again, OSIT.

[quote author=Buddy]
On another thread, you mentioned reading the Jacob Needleman - Lost Christianity thread. Have you also read and finished that book and have there been any benefits gained? Seems to me I experienced similar releases of emotion through gaining some realizations from that book and I was wondering if the same might apply to you. I would certainly recommend the book to anyone, although I'm not sure if 'timing' is right in your case or if you've already read it or whatever. Others might have more helpful views on this.[/quote]

I read three quarters of it. Reading your post, and having woken early this morning, I picked the book up again. I was at Chapter 7: A Search for Conscious Christianity, and read the chapter before work. The excitement I felt reading Lost Christianity a few weeks ago was rekindled, and the idea of the 'intermediate' and the 'conscious' seemed absolutely relevant to my current point in the journey. I'm going to finish the book before returning to ISOTM. I think the timing is perfect.

[quote author=Buddy]
These are just my thoughts ATM and may be off-target due to being very tired from work, so FWIW.
[/quote]

I can relate to the tiredness from work, and I appreciate your thoughts greatly.

edit: quotes

 

[Vic]

I then remembered that I spent my growing years parenting my parents. That's how I experienced it anyway. They were both deeply unhappy and damaged people. So I had to parent my younger brother too.

Hi Strawman,

It feels to me that this is a really important insight and worth looking into further. Narcissistic wounding from childhood can cause us to become so estranged from our true feelings -- because we suppressed them to cater to the needs of the parent system. In adult life, this narcissism can cause us to be excessively intellectual about our relationships with others, trying to anticipate what their needs are, instead of being authentic in the true sense of the word. The strategy works well in superficial terms but gets dysfunctional when relationships progress into ever more deeper layers of our psyche.

Thanks Beetlemaniac, that speaks to me. That is me completely. It's funny, when someone delivers insight into one's own psyche - almost like saying "oh yes, this is you, have a look" - it has several effects:

[list type=decimal]
[*]a sense of relief - possibly because there is a force that knows one more than oneself. A much longed-for parent, or God.

[*]A humbling - a realization that it's okay to relax a little because one doesn't know all there is to know.
[*]A sense of the dismantling of one's illusory sense of self. Awareness of the pain caused by illusion makes this desirable.

[*]Clarity in terms of self-importance, and the feeling that it is being extinguished.
[/list]

[quote author=beetlemaniac]
At that point if we can gain more consciousness of our unmet needs, we can also start to see ways in which our behavior is motivated by these needs. So then it becomes a point to acknowledge the wounding that is causing this neediness. The pouring of light (knowledge, love) onto these wounds, coupled with good diet and practice of EE is helping me on my own personal journey of discovering the truth about myself.
[/quote]

Another 'funny' thing, in personal terms, is that I generate an immediate and forceful resistance to the idea that I am wounded, almost to the point of denying it. Yet the idea of pouring light onto these wounds feels so absolutely right - I thirst for that. What a contradiction!

[quote author=beetlemaniac]
The Big 5 books come useful in the bit about gaining knowledge, and they should be read with compassion for the wounded part of yourself -- not just intellectually. The compassion will become the driving force to bring your conception of yourself to be aligned with your true self and to release all those past hurts. I'd recommend also checking out Fear of the Abyss by Aleta Edwards.
[/quote]

Compassion for the wounded part of myself? That produces a feeling of vulnerability, and a reflex action of defense - OY! there's nothing about me that needs compassion - pity. :) Aren't these programs - classic in the sense that they are so prevalent among the human race - ridiculous. This is where the sense of childishness comes in again. But when I become conscious I know that I am wounded and I want someone/thing to look at my wounds (ouch!) and pour the light onto them. (I just got the urge to swear angrily at authority)

[quote author=beetlemaniac]
I feel that the 4th way practice is incomplete without an understanding the dynamics that occurred in our family lives -- I haven't read a lot of Gurdjieff material, only ISOTM, but it seems that for healing emotional wounding, the knowledge the group has collected on Narcissism and Vampirism is indispensable. Hope this helps...
[/quote]

Okay, I'll look at those. Thank you, BM.

 

[Buddy]

Thanks Beetlemaniac, that speaks to me. That is me completely. It's funny, when someone delivers insight into one's own psyche - almost like saying "oh yes, this is you, have a look" - it has several effects:

[list type=decimal]
[*]a sense of relief - possibly because there is a force that knows one more than oneself. A much longed-for parent, or God.

[*]A humbling - a realization that it's okay to relax a little because one doesn't know all there is to know.
[*]A sense of the dismantling of one's illusory sense of self. Awareness of the pain caused by illusion makes this desirable.

[*]Clarity in terms of self-importance, and the feeling that it is being extinguished.
[/list]

Yes, and it has taken me a lot longer to realize some value of this process than it seems to have taken you.

For a long time, I doubted the "objectivity" of other member's views of my thinking because I already had an understanding of "objectivity" within the subject-object metaphysics of Aristotle and Plato that made the concept worthless for the stated purpose IMO. So, to reconcile the use of the word "objectivity" with the fact that some people actually can see the heart of a matter at times and actually CAN help, I started defining objectivity in this network's context as meaning "unbiased in terms of another person's self-schema." Then, the light came on.

IOW, when we share with a network of people what we see and how we see it, it gives other people a chance to look at the same thing without using that particular self-schema that is active in us at the moment. That way, things can be noticed and pointed out that we couldn't see because our "theory of the moment" didn't allow for that possibility or, if it did, we didn't notice it for some reason. Does that make sense and maybe also address your previous remarks related to "objectivity"?

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Strawman

You've raised a question in me that I find hard to be sincere with. What do I really want. Do I want truth or consolation? Analysis often leads me towards consolation which is far more attractive than becoming open to the results of impartiality.

Gurdjieff of course leads me towards experiencing these opposing attractions but I'm also fortunate to have Simone Weil's influence. You'll never get consolation from Simone. When I think of how much she needed truth above consolation even at such an early age I see that I don't really "need." So for me anyway, I must begin from the beginning with small efforts. As a resident of Plato's cave governed by imagination, I am not yet open to this quality of "need" sufficient to experience the human condition as it exists in me. Anyhow, this is how Simone Weil needed:

Excerpt from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin as she was nearing death. Her brother is Andre Weil one of the twentieth centuries leading mathematicians and peer of Einstein.

"At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth."

Can I need "truth" of myself enough to continue to observe without inviting consolation? I know it is possible because Gurdjieff did and I believe Simone did as well. I don't come from the same inner place they did so I have to take smaller steps.

 

[Vic]

Thanks Beetlemaniac, that speaks to me. That is me completely. It's funny, when someone delivers insight into one's own psyche - almost like saying "oh yes, this is you, have a look" - it has several effects:

• a sense of relief - possibly because there is a force that knows one more than oneself. A much longed-for parent, or God.
  
• A humbling - a realization that it's okay to relax a little because one doesn't know all there is to know.
• A sense of the dismantling of one's illusory sense of self. Awareness of the pain caused by illusion makes this desirable.
  
• Clarity in terms of self-importance, and the feeling that it is being extinguished.

Yes, and it has taken me a lot longer to realize some value of this process than it seems to have taken you.

For a long time, I doubted the "objectivity" of other member's views of my thinking because I already had an understanding of "objectivity" within the subject-object metaphysics of Aristotle and Plato that made the concept worthless for the stated purpose IMO. So, to reconcile the use of the word "objectivity" with the fact that some people actually can see the heart of a matter at times and actually CAN help, I started defining objectivity in this network's context as meaning "unbiased in terms of another person's self-schema." Then, the light came on.

IOW, when we share with a network of people what we see and how we see it, it gives other people a chance to look at the same thing without using that particular self-schema that is active in us at the moment. That way, things can be noticed and pointed out that we couldn't see because our "theory of the moment" didn't allow for that possibility or, if it did, we didn't notice it for some reason. Does that make sense and maybe also address your previous remarks related to "objectivity"?

Mote, plank, and eye comes to mind :)

 

[Vic]

Hi Strawman

You've raised a question in me that I find hard to be sincere with. What do I really want. Do I want truth or consolation? Analysis often leads me towards consolation which is far more attractive than becoming open to the results of impartiality.

Gurdjieff of course leads me towards experiencing these opposing attractions but I'm also fortunate to have Simone Weil's influence. You'll never get consolation from Simone. When I think of how much she needed truth above consolation even at such an early age I see that I don't really "need." So for me anyway, I must begin from the beginning with small efforts. As a resident of Plato's cave governed by imagination, I am not yet open to this quality of "need" sufficient to experience the human condition as it exists in me. Anyhow, this is how Simone Weil needed:

Excerpt from a letter Simone Weil wrote on May 15, 1942 in Marseilles, France to her close friend Father Perrin as she was nearing death. Her brother is Andre Weil one of the twentieth centuries leading mathematicians and peer of Einstein.

"At fourteen I fell into one of those fits of bottomless despair that come with adolescence, and I seriously thought of dying because of the mediocrity of my natural faculties. The exceptional gifts of my brother, who had a childhood and youth comparable to those of Pascal, brought my own inferiority home to me. I did not mind having no visible successes, but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth."

Can I need "truth" of myself enough to continue to observe without inviting consolation? I know it is possible because Gurdjieff did and I believe Simone did as well. I don't come from the same inner place they did so I have to take smaller steps.

Hi Nick_A

What do you mean when you say inner space? Did Gurdjieff and Weil come from the same inner space? How do you define 'inner space' exactly?

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Pj

This is hard to explain but I believe it relates to Gurdjieff's explanation of reincarnation and Plato's idea of soul knowledge. I cannot think of any other explanation for Simone's dedication to truth and her efforts to invite the suffering necessary to be free of buffers other than she was a partially developed soul. This means she manifested on earth from a deeper place, inner space, than I did. It is as if she had created something worth reincarnating and needed direct experience of this incarnation to do so.

I also believe Gurdjieff was special in this way. He had "soul knowledge" and had reincarnated come from deeper inner space. It was his obligation to introduce the potential for understanding into the World from a perspective necessary for the West.

Does conscious humanity exist in a manner we cannot comprehend as we are and is it our potential? Is this account concerning Simone some French BS or was it a real experience? I don't know but as with all things relating to Gurdjeff and Simone, I've learned it is more advantageous to keep an open mind.

From an Interview with biographer Jacques Cabaud:

Simone Weil's life and work has played a big part in your life. Could you perhaps, give us a brief anecdote to end with?

Well, here is an astonishing story. Though it has to do with Simone's after-life, am not making this up. I tell it because it has illustrative value.
A man had a dream... He dreamt that he entered into a building, took an elevator up to the top floor, where he found a door and pushed the buzzer. Upon being invited to enter, he walked across an apartment and reached a room where he saw a large table at which someone was seated, who looked as if she might be a scholar.
"You must know many languages", he told her.
"Where I am, we speak only one language", she answered.
At this point, the man woke up. The language in question he guessed to be that of love.
Some time later, after he discovered the writings of Simone Weil, he made by telephone an appointment with Mrs Selma Weil (Simone's mother), and proceeded to number 3, rue Auguste Comte in Paris. When he came to the building, he recognised it. And he entered the very elevator he used in his dream, reached the same floor, saw the same door, walked through the same apartment and came to the same room, where stood the same table. On the wall, he noticed a photo which was that of the very same person he had seen in his dream. The books of Simone Weil he had read had not been illustrated. Thus he saw there for the first time the features of the person he had met in his sleep.
Since this story was told to me by the man himself, a reverend and furthermore a psychiatrist, and "there are more things in heaven and earth" than our philosophy can think of, I did not doubt his tale. He is dead now, but I hesitate to mention his name. The gist of the matter however is that this story brings home a point which was made by Pascal: "C'est le coeur qui connait Dieu." "It is through the heart that we know God". And, may I add: "And everything else also."

 

[Vic]

Hi Pj

This is hard to explain but I believe it relates to Gurdjieff's explanation of reincarnation and Plato's idea of soul knowledge. I cannot think of any other explanation for Simone's dedication to truth and her efforts to invite the suffering necessary to be free of buffers other than she was a partially developed soul. This means she manifested on earth from a deeper place, inner space, than I did. It is as if she had created something worth reincarnating and needed direct experience of this incarnation to do so.

I also believe Gurdjieff was special in this way. He had "soul knowledge" and had reincarnated come from deeper inner space. It was his obligation to introduce the potential for understanding into the World from a perspective necessary for the West.

Does conscious humanity exist in a manner we cannot comprehend as we are and is it our potential? Is this account concerning Simone some French BS or was it a real experience? I don't know but as with all things relating to Gurdjeff and Simone, I've learned it is more advantageous to keep an open mind.

From an Interview with biographer Jacques Cabaud:

Simone Weil's life and work has played a big part in your life. Could you perhaps, give us a brief anecdote to end with?

Well, here is an astonishing story. Though it has to do with Simone's after-life, am not making this up. I tell it because it has illustrative value.
A man had a dream... He dreamt that he entered into a building, took an elevator up to the top floor, where he found a door and pushed the buzzer. Upon being invited to enter, he walked across an apartment and reached a room where he saw a large table at which someone was seated, who looked as if she might be a scholar.
"You must know many languages", he told her.
"Where I am, we speak only one language", she answered.
At this point, the man woke up. The language in question he guessed to be that of love.
Some time later, after he discovered the writings of Simone Weil, he made by telephone an appointment with Mrs Selma Weil (Simone's mother), and proceeded to number 3, rue Auguste Comte in Paris. When he came to the building, he recognised it. And he entered the very elevator he used in his dream, reached the same floor, saw the same door, walked through the same apartment and came to the same room, where stood the same table. On the wall, he noticed a photo which was that of the very same person he had seen in his dream. The books of Simone Weil he had read had not been illustrated. Thus he saw there for the first time the features of the person he had met in his sleep.
Since this story was told to me by the man himself, a reverend and furthermore a psychiatrist, and "there are more things in heaven and earth" than our philosophy can think of, I did not doubt his tale. He is dead now, but I hesitate to mention his name. The gist of the matter however is that this story brings home a point which was made by Pascal: "C'est le coeur qui connait Dieu." "It is through the heart that we know God". And, may I add: "And everything else also."

Okay, you are not making that story (which is very interesting) up, but some sort of context in which you were told the story might give me/us more with which to respond to it. In the interests of networking on this forum - a forum dedicated to research in order to discover truth - the more information provided the better.

Your definition of inner space, and how it relates to Gurdjieff/Weil and yourself, is still eluding me. This may be down to the fact that I have a different 'picture' to you of how we re-incarnate into 3D as human beings. For me it doesn't involve space of any kind - at least not in the way I happen to 'see' space. But I am getting something, and as it's me 'getting it' it may be inaccurate. I'll offer it anyway and look forward to your feedback.

I get the idea that you put Gurdjieff and Weil on a higher level than you, in terms of individual evolutionary development, if that makes sense. That may well be the case, but because of it you leave your question - the one regarding truth and/or consolation - hanging in the air without a need for resolution. In other words you don't need to take hold of your machete and dive into the jungle of The Work, because you are not on the level of Gurdjieff or Weil - you aren't good enough. That leaves you free to keep the whole thing purely intellectual.

I appreciate this discussion, Nick_A. I hope you'll indulge me. Thanks :)

 

[Vic]

Just a quick post to say that I sense the time has come to stop going on about 'me' and hijacking other threads as I have done since joining this incredible (but totally credible) community. I think I needed to get some nonsense sorted out - some dots connected. I have been working on myself for many years, and since arriving here I believe I now have my foot firmly on the first rung of the ladder. Thanks to you all I am aware of a stability and direction. So that's it. I am grateful for your forbearance. This leads me onto my display name change.

My new name is simply an arrangement of the middle names I was christened (handed over to the state) with. It has a certain comic element to it - OSIT - and I believe this is a good thing. Self-importance, whether built as a defence against attack, or for any other reason, crumbles when humour is directed towards it. You know what I mean ;)

Edit: I'll still report 'strange' goings-on in my own psyche to the network, but my focus is now on research and discovery. Learning is fun makes absolute sense.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Pj

The story was the conclusion of this interview

http://www.douban.com/group/topic/1965573/

You are familiar with Gurdjieff’s explanation of the Ray of Creation. You’ve read about density and frequency of vibrations . I consider inner space as the measure between levels of reality. This space or the quality of a moment itself differs in its purity or closeness to the source. The inner space of world 3 is of a different quality than world 48 because of the laws that manifest within it.

The seed of the soul is of a different quality than our personality. It occupies space that is foreign to the level of our personality. You’ve read that the higher blends with the lower to actualize the middle. For me the higher resonates within a quality of space the lower cannot and can "feel" vertically in a way the lower cannot. A partially developed soul is resonating at a finer quality than our lower parts.

Gurdjieff and Simone Weil both easily admitted their nothingness to that which was above them and were open to the experience of reality. They were superior to me as I am. I cannot “need” as they do. My illusions get in the way. I can admit that Kasparov is a far better chess player than me. I don’t find it demeaning to admit it. In the same way I admit that those like Gurdjieff and Simone are far more advanced consciously than me. I don’t find it demeaning but just realistic. I’m not making idols out of them but just expressing gratitude for their efforts which have allowed me to become more realistic as to the nature of the human condition and its potential as it exists in the world and within me.

Consider this gem from Simone. Without Gurdjieff I would never have appreciated its significance:

"Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil

 

[Buddy]

...a question in me that I find hard to be sincere with. What do I really want. Do I want truth or consolation? Analysis often leads me towards consolation which is far more attractive than becoming open to the results of impartiality.

Why?

Assuming you are speaking within the theoretical framework of our work (because you are here participating and agreed to the guidelines), I'm curious as to what 'truth' that results from impartiality could possibly be so scary? And to whom is it so scary if you were truly impartial? For purposes of this work, apparently you survived childhood where whatever 'truth' you have acquired so far was gained and now needs bringing to conscious awareness for integration and unification. This is "fun da mental" :) to what we do here and what we are talking about, overall.

In the past, many people have had to spend many years in work before making any gains at all and even now, without some plan or conscious aim, our entire motivation for any personal development can be wiped out if we become unwitting idolizers of profoundly pessimistic philosophies and other people's personal theories of whatever. I'm not denigrating Simone Weil here. I'm familiar with her life story and respect it for what it's worth, but I try to observe and to know and to understand that this activity of work also requires acknowledgement of context as well - from the historical to the personal.

Fortunately for us, cognitive science and neuro-psychology has advanced quite a bit since Gurdjieff and Weil's time and can help. One of the simplest first steps a person could take could be to first take an implicit association test (IAT) then go out and put yourself in a situation in which a proposed prejudice should activate and then simply observe what you do (which can include what you don't do) when you're behaving normally.

There are only maybe three major issues that might prevent you from gaining some useful information about yourself from your own adaptive unconscious:

1) a possibility that an observation or self-inference (I dislike ***** people) will be invalidated because it's logically inconsistent with a consciously held view (I'm an egalitarian) and you're motivated to control prejudiced reactions,

2) lay theories that prevent you from believing it's even possible to gain this insight (intuition is phony and can't be trusted, therefore a gut feeling about this or that is useless to me as a clue),

3) chronic positive or negative self views that have been affirmed over and over again so many times that you now have an unconscious motivational barrier to re-cognize certain inner dispositions. IOW, the invalidation of a genuine observation is now automatized and is carried out before you can be consciously aware of it.

Variations of the above can also hinder us in our efforts to simply observe ourselves while going about our daily lives, but being aware of the above should help, no?

When we don't have access to people who can offer accurate observations of us in our various contexts (he's well-intentioned because he never says or does anything to hurt anyone but he's prejudiced against those people in the shipping dept because he won't go near them and deliberately avoids them when he walks between departments), the best thing we can do for ourselves is to find a motivation to gain accuracy in our own self-observations - especially if that accuracy comes at the expense of our belief that we are consistent in our words and behaviors.

Finding or creating this motivation may require a concentrated act of initiative, but then Gurdjieff covered the need for a consciously made, viscerally felt Aim, didn't he? And you did say "I've learned it is more advantageous to keep an open mind."

My 2 cents.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Buddy. You asked:

"Why?

Assuming you are speaking within the theoretical framework of our work (because you are here participating and agreed to the guidelines), I'm curious as to what 'truth' that results from impartiality could possibly be so scary? And to whom is it so scary if you were truly impartial? For purposes of this work, apparently you survived childhood where whatever 'truth' you have acquired so far was gained and now needs bringing to conscious awareness for integration and unification. This is "fun da mental" to what we do here and what we are talking about, overall."

They are scary because my personality doesn't want to die. Simone Weil asks intense questions. She is not for the women and children so to speak. My own experiences lead me to conclude that Gurdjieff provides the means to respond to the quality of her questions in a coherent and beneficial form. I’ve come to appreciate the nature of a very dominant fear in me through both their writings. So when they agree I find it profitable to contemplate in a sincere fashion what they mean. Consider the following. Both indicate a quality of death that must be scary or a person wouldn’t be experiencing it.


ALL RELIGIONS SPEAK ABOUT DEATH DURING THIS LIFE ON EARTH. Death must come before rebirth. But what must die? False confidence in one’s own knowledge, self-love and egoism. Our egoism must be broken. We must realize that we are very complicated machines, and so this process of breaking is bound to be a long and difficult task. Before real growth becomes possible, our personality must die. Gurdjieff, VIEWS FROM THE REAL WORLD, p. 86


"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."

"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

"That is why we fly from the inner void, since God might steal into it. It is not the pursuit of pleasure and the aversion for effort which causes sin, but fear of God. We know that we cannot see him face to face without dying, and we do not want to die." Simone Weil -- Gravity and Grace


I’ve felt this fear and everything tempts me to accept it in favor of consolation. I’m just admitting it. That is why for me the beginning of self observation must be admitting: "I know nothing."

 

[Vic]

Hi Pj

The story was the conclusion of this interview

http://www.douban.com/group/topic/1965573/

You are familiar with Gurdjieff’s explanation of the Ray of Creation. You’ve read about density and frequency of vibrations . I consider inner space as the measure between levels of reality. This space or the quality of a moment itself differs in its purity or closeness to the source. The inner space of world 3 is of a different quality than world 48 because of the laws that manifest within it.

The seed of the soul is of a different quality than our personality. It occupies space that is foreign to the level of our personality. You’ve read that the higher blends with the lower to actualize the middle. For me the higher resonates within a quality of space the lower cannot and can "feel" vertically in a way the lower cannot. A partially developed soul is resonating at a finer quality than our lower parts.

Gurdjieff and Simone Weil both easily admitted their nothingness to that which was above them and were open to the experience of reality. They were superior to me as I am. I cannot “need” as they do. My illusions get in the way. I can admit that Kasparov is a far better chess player than me. I don’t find it demeaning to admit it. In the same way I admit that those like Gurdjieff and Simone are far more advanced consciously than me. I don’t find it demeaning but just realistic. I’m not making idols out of them but just expressing gratitude for their efforts which have allowed me to become more realistic as to the nature of the human condition and its potential as it exists in the world and within me.

Consider this gem from Simone. Without Gurdjieff I would never have appreciated its significance:

"Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. It is given to very few minds to notice that things and beings exist. Since my childhood I have not wanted anything else but to receive the complete revelation of this before dying." ~Simone Weil

Thanks Nick_A

I intend to explore the work of Simone Weil. It/she sounds fascinating.

I now have an understanding of how you see inner space, as well as you in relation to Gurdjieff and Weil. I hope you didn't mind my playing devil's advocate.

Gratitude towards teachers such as Gurdjieff, Weil, and LKJ, is without doubt a healthy response, and your mention of it has given me food for thought.

Yes that quote is a gem. It immediately took me to Lost Christianity by Jacob Needleman - I just finished it. It describes how attention in its purest state is first necessary before we can even hope to achieve spiritual advancement.

In answer to your original question regarding Truth or consolation: my own thoughts on it are that I choose, without hesitation, Truth. Consolation, as I perceive it, is not something I am familiar with - what you've never had you don't miss, as they say. But I do realise you are talking about a level of consolation deeper than the emotional. It's only recently that I have begun exploring G's teachings. I understand them conceptually, but I still need to live them to be able to discuss them with any helpful insight.

 

[Vic]

Hi Buddy. You asked:

"Why?

Assuming you are speaking within the theoretical framework of our work (because you are here participating and agreed to the guidelines), I'm curious as to what 'truth' that results from impartiality could possibly be so scary? And to whom is it so scary if you were truly impartial? For purposes of this work, apparently you survived childhood where whatever 'truth' you have acquired so far was gained and now needs bringing to conscious awareness for integration and unification. This is "fun da mental" to what we do here and what we are talking about, overall."

They are scary because my personality doesn't want to die. Simone Weil asks intense questions. She is not for the women and children so to speak. My own experiences lead me to conclude that Gurdjieff provides the means to respond to the quality of her questions in a coherent and beneficial form. I’ve come to appreciate the nature of a very dominant fear in me through both their writings. So when they agree I find it profitable to contemplate in a sincere fashion what they mean. Consider the following. Both indicate a quality of death that must be scary or a person wouldn’t be experiencing it.


ALL RELIGIONS SPEAK ABOUT DEATH DURING THIS LIFE ON EARTH. Death must come before rebirth. But what must die? False confidence in one’s own knowledge, self-love and egoism. Our egoism must be broken. We must realize that we are very complicated machines, and so this process of breaking is bound to be a long and difficult task. Before real growth becomes possible, our personality must die. Gurdjieff, VIEWS FROM THE REAL WORLD, p. 86


"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."

"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

"That is why we fly from the inner void, since God might steal into it. It is not the pursuit of pleasure and the aversion for effort which causes sin, but fear of God. We know that we cannot see him face to face without dying, and we do not want to die." Simone Weil -- Gravity and Grace


I’ve felt this fear and everything tempts me to accept it in favor of consolation. I’m just admitting it. That is why for me the beginning of self observation must be admitting: "I know nothing."

Absolutely. I believe it is the same fear that is behind everyone's choice here of committing to the work. But may I suggest that 'choosing' between truth and consolation can be a mere intellectual indulgence? I believe the matter is an urgent one - the opportunity to choose, if such a thing exists, might be gone before you know it.

Weil seems to have generated the courage (or she was just plain desperate) to put her fear to one side and embrace truth.

You are here, Nick_A, so perhaps you already opted for truth.